Hi Dickie.

Now that I realise that you are a scientist and an enthusiast for the UN, I am able to direct you to something scientific.

There is a graph in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers released in February this year which is scientific. The global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), is said in the summary document, to support the proposition of anthropogenic global warming, which is put forward in the summary.

The writers of the summary are not scientists, but political representatives, whose concern is to promote views which are detrimental to the developed world. Although they doctored the graph with a nice swathe of colour, they did not alter it, and left the key intact.

If you carefully use the key to read the graph, it reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998, and global temperature has actually fallen 0.05°C over the period of 8 years from 1998 to 2006.

This is a nice package for someone seeking the truth about global warming.

Firstly, proof that the UN is deliberately misleading as to the contents of the scientific report, yet to be released, by unsubstantiated statements in its purported summary.

Secondly, a scientific basis for neutralising the scaremongers who assert anthropogenic global warming, on a factual base of one half of one degree warming in a period of 106 years, and a strong likelihood that a cooling period has already commenced.

No wonder the global warming enthusiasts are pushing for a switch to the meaningless mantra of “climate change”.

Leo Lane. Your assertions are incorrect. I am not a scientist nor do I support the UN. Your assertions give me little reason to view your other claims with any credibility.

Firstly, please explain why IPCC "political representatives" would wish to "promote views which are detrimental to the developed world."

The "political representatives" I have dealt with over many years, have at all times promoted views in favour of pollutant industries and the subsequent, imprudent developments without regard to human health or the environment.

Climate change or global warming is actually secondary to my prime concerns that even if we were already in an ice age, the toxicity of anthropogenic pollutant emissions would continue to destroy our health, oceans, rivers, soil and wild-life. Polluting and privatising the little clean air remaining is no longer regarded as trivial by fair-minded citizens.

However, the climate sceptics may wish to muse on the announcement in 1994 by the US Air Force Defence where they declared that "studies on weather modification had done so well they were now a permanent part of air force operations. The US Air Force stated that details of weather control were classified and would not be made public." (Rosalie Bertell - Planet Earth 2000).

Pollutant industries and their political lap dogs have failed to act responsibly by refusing to implement already available pollution prevention control in pursuit of maximum profits.

IPCC's papers or the other "expert" opinions on climate change are a small part of my research, however, I have spent several years extensively researching the scientifically proven toxicity of fossil fuels and the subsequent atmospheric, hydrocarbon and other pollutant emissions released by industry and the glaringly obvious impact these emissions have wrought on our eco systems.

Digging up our resources in pursuit of "economic growth", by depleting other precious resources and polluting the planet, makes litte sense in this enlightened era.

Perhaps you would like to address my last question in my last post? I've yet to receive a response from a sceptic with regard to my concerns over the anthropogenic pollution of this fragile planet.

Richard Castles is not informing people about Canberra's climate with any accuracy. (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543) This is not a lie, but misinformation.

Castles said that global temperatures have not risen since the second year of the Howard Govt i.e. starting March 1997. This is misinformation (at least!) because no study calculates global temperatures in terms of the years of the Howard Government. It is misinformation because it implies that global annual temperatures have dropped over each successive year.

If Castles were honest you would say that some studies show the highest recorded average global temperatures were from 1998 and others show 2005 eg http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html.

There is no downward trend concluded in any study.

Anyone who digs up the anomalies in a data series, such as the 1968 Canberra heatwave, and makes these anomalies the central element in an argument can be legitimately accused of providing misinformation.

Providing misinformation is the main ingredient to any article which denies global warming. Lies abound and when confronted with either, the usual response is to attack the science or the scientists. This is the case not with Castles, but with the Mark Lawson article (attached to this thread.)

The vast majority of people, and the responsible governments of the world rely upon science to provide reliable information about the world and identify problems and resolutions in an unbiased manner -- based upon sober evidence. The idea of a scientific conspiracy against the world, or that scientists are stubborn, stupid or embarrassing, as suggested by Lawson's article is a fantasy.

And now look at the post just above. Don't pay attention to Leo Lane's words which are copied from a tribunal report which allowed an Xstrata coal mine to proceed. http://www.lrt.qld.gov.au/lrt/PDF/Xstrata2_33.pdf

Read the actual IPCC report by clicking here http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf, with the graph on page 6.

David Latimer’s assertions do not appear to me to have any basis.

I have indeed, paraphrased the words of the Chief Judge of the Land and Resources Tribunal of Queensland, in the Xstrata case, who considered the IPCC summary, and pointed out where its own graph showed it to be making statements which were not borne out by the scientific evidence.

David considers this to be good grounds for ignoring what I said. Does he consider that basing a statement on what has been said in a judgement by a Judge in a Court case, disallows the statement?

The UN employed 2500 scientists to prepare a report, which it has not released. Contrary to accepted scientific practice, it has released a summary, prior to the release of the science.

It is now demonstrated that the summary is not backed up by the science, as has long been asserted by some of the scientists who prepared scientific reports for previous IPCC reports, and were denied input to the summary.

In any event, all the alarmist nonsense has nothing to back it up other than a warming in 106 years, of six tenths of one degree at the most.

The alarmists rely on predictions, generally from modelling, which has no scientific credibility, for their attacks on civilization, and should be ignored.

Dickie, in the third paragraph of the post to which I replied, asserted that Tim Ball‘s statement of his credentials was “blather” and he saw nothing “scientific” in what he said. This, to me, was a representation that he had some scientific expertise. He now says he has none, so I would commend him to a proper consideration of Tim Ball’s credentials, which are impressive, and then to a careful reading of what he says, in the light of his qualifications as a scientist.

DL: "Richard Castles is not informing people about Canberra's climate with any accuracy."

How so?

DL: "Castles said that global temperatures have not risen since the second year of the Howard Govt i.e. starting March 1997. This is misinformation (at least!) because no study calculates global temperatures in terms of the years of the Howard Government."

I'll let others make of this what they will.

DL: "It is misinformation because it implies that global annual temperatures have dropped over each successive year."

No, it doesn't. How?

DL: "If Castles were honest you would say that some studies show the highest recorded average global temperatures were from 1998 and others show 2005"

Pardon me for using the IPCC data (TAR), although I now undertand they are back-adjusting some of the data.

DL: "Anyone who digs up the anomalies in a data series, such as the 1968 Canberra heatwave, and makes these anomalies the central element in an argument can be legitimately accused of providing misinformation."

Oh, for crying out loud! I have responded to this accusation about five times. That you can't read or comprehend simple material does not mean I am misinforming.

I am reflecting on what a nasty thing it is to accuse someone of lying without evidence, and what sort of a deluded and grandiose person would have such a golden rule. You have still been unable to admit any of your errors, David. You are in a glass house, and your golden rule is blinding you to your own self-delusion and deception, but I don't expect you to comprehend any of this.

Richard Castles says that he is not misinforming people. But one person posted to the thread showing that they thought he'd satisfactorily showed that Canberra's climate was unaltered.

Richard Castles worries that he is being called a liar. He does not need to be concerned. I have made it clear he is providing misinformation. For example, the heatwave actually happened in Canberra, but someone genuinely looking after the interests of their readers would not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference.

I don't feel the need to respond to the bulk of Richard's post because people can judge it on its own merits.

Response to Leo Lane:
Passing off someone's work as your own is known as plagerism. It appears my golden rule is being validated in a new way.